After Crushing Prop 50 Defeat, California GOP Turns to the Courts

California Republicans appeared down but not out Wednesday after enduring a resounding defeat on Prop 50, handing Democrats a potential gain of up to five House seats in next year’s midterms and giving Gov. Gavin Newsom a huge win to boost his 2028 presidential ambitions.

California GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to immediately block and ultimately cast aside the newly approved map of state congressional seats, which passed in Tuesday’s election by roughly 28 percentage points. With 77% of the estimated vote total counted in California, the redistricting measure was ahead 63.9% to 36.1%.

Brushing off calls for her resignation from a few influential conservative voices and enduring ridicule from Newsom, Rankin forged ahead, arguing in the GOP lawsuit that the new map illegally uses race as a factor to favor Latino voters, thereby violating the Constitution’s equal protection and voting rights guarantees.

“This is about the Constitution – it’s about the rights that our ancestors have fought so hard for in this country,” Rankin, the first African-American to chair the state GOP, said at Wednesday morning press conference. “It’s about sticking with the Constitution, and it’s about equality and fair and equal treatment. And we believe that Californians, no matter what color your skin is, no matter what your socio-economic background is, you deserve to be treated fair. You deserve to be treated equally.”

Newsom’s office provided a snarky response to the lawsuit, noting that they hadn’t reviewed it yet but commenting, “Good luck, losers.”

Proposition 50 tossed the state’s U.S. House district maps, which were drawn by an independent commission in a lengthy deliberative process after the decennial census, and replaced it with new maps quickly drawn by Democratic lawmakers and their consultant Paul Mitchell. The voter-approved gerrymander was designed to neutralize a...

I don’t know that it was that high.

Here on the Left Coast, the Yes on 50 signs were all over the place. No on 50 in the nicer parts of town, but not as many.

But it really doesn’t matter.

Back in 1994 the real Californians passed Prop. 187 by the same margin and the Democrat/Mexican separatist party went to war over it, suing in Federal court. Led to Mariana Pfaelzer ruling major parts of 187 un-Constitutional, which was absurd.

Then Gray Davis said “I’m not a judge” implying that he wouldn’t try to stop the appeal of Pfaelzer’s ruling under Pete Wilson.

But of course he did as soon as he was “elected”. And it was ultimately repealed - unconstitutionally under the California Constitution - by the Mexicans in the state legislature back in 2014.

So now it’s time for turnabout. No doubt the 9th Circuit will claim it’s not discriminatory triggering an appeal to the SCOTUS...which is what they want, since they don’t want to be seen as crossing their buddy Newscum.

What will SCOTUS do? Hard to say. But recent Texas redistricting came about because Texas won the cases filed by LULAC, MALDEF and other Mexican separatist organizations. Thus Texas was free to redefine gerrymandered districts, which is all that happened.

So it ain’t a slam dunk for Gav-Gav no mo. Just because you get a majority voting for discrimination doesn’t make it cool. That’s what the court told the South for 60 years. What will they say now that the shoe is on the other foot?

Thank you for referencing that article E. Pluribus Unum.

After Crushing Prop 50 Defeat, California GOP Turns to the Courts

I was surprised that a previous thread on this issue at least mentioned the 14th Amendment (14A), probably meaning Section 2 of that amendment which is a penalty for states where election integrity has been compromised. The corrupt political party practice of gerrymandering is arguably a violation of that section imo.

Not So Fast, Newsom: California GOP Files Federal Voting Rights Suit to Block Prop 50 Congressional Maps (11.5.25)

Sadly, despite the zero tolerance, “hair trigger” wording of Section 2, third party opinion indicates that both political parties, including renegade states and the compromised federal government, have historically ignored that section.

Excerpted from 14A:

But when the right to vote at any election
is denied to any
or in any way abridged,
Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Given that the corrupt political parties have been ignoring Section 2, I hope that Republicans are sincere about investigating if Democrats violated that section with Prop. 50.

Never confuse Motion with Action [especially in an election year].” ―Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
No serious effort was ever made in Congress to effectuate § 2, and the only judicial attempt was rebuffed.2 , cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946). —Apportionment Clause
The Section had long been dead. But there are two camps of legal scholars who wish to revive it. The first consists of those who would like to see Section Two enforced to punish states that abridge their citizens’ right to vote, especially in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder. Recently, Joshua Geltzer, the executive director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, added himself to this camp. The second camp is using Section Two, which distinguishes on the basis of gender, as evidence that Section One’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit gender-based discrimination. Jonathan Mitchell spearheads this movement. —The Worrisome Ghost of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Second Section

Note Thomas Jefferson's advice against ignoring parts of the Constitution.

The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts. --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445"
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature. —Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.